Free will

Sam Harris's Free Will is the ideal introduction to the subject of free will and determinism. It isn't in any sense a comprehensive study (and has no pretentions of being so), but instead offers a general overview of the subject, presented in a remarkably simple and easy-to-read style. Included is

Show More

a critique of compatibalism and a brief look at the moral consequences of abandoning the 'free will illusion' with respect to the concept of responsibility, but of special note is Harris's distinction between determinism and fatalism (two concepts all too often conflated by anti-determinists), however for such an important point this is given only a brief mention of one or two sentences. The entire meditation is skillfully condensed into something like 13,000 words – a quite astonishing feat of concision – while somehow avoiding the sin of being in any way simplistic. So, in all, a quite brilliant little book that far surpassed my initial expectations. If you know any adherents of the free will illusion, buy them each a copy of this book – it's short, cheap, undemanding, and might just make the world that little bit more rational.

Show Less

What is Free Will? Does it exist? Do you have it?
Very interesting look at Free Will

This is another short book by Sam Harris, similar to his Amazon Single "Lying." In this book, Harris argues for the non-existence of free will. I was intrigued to see how Harris would convince me that the words I'm currently typing are not of my own free will.You will have to read the book to see

Show More

how Harris constructs his argument. I have no prior knowledge of this topic. So whether Harris' ideas are fresh and forward-thinking or moribund is beyond me. He begins the book with an example of a heinous crime that made national headlines several years ago, and he just keeps going from there. By the end, I was at least more doubtful of free will than I was before reading this book."Free Will" is a very approachable book, more so than some of Harris' others. I think anyone could benefit from reading it and thinking about Harris' ideas. You might not agree with everything. But there's certainly much to ponder in this slim volume.

Show Less

This book is short (66 pages plus 8 pages on end notes). The author asserts that free will is an illusion. He uses lab experiments and reasoning to defend his opinion. However, he says that people are capable of “premeditated, voluntary action” (page 31). For “premeditated, voluntary

Show More

action” he uses an example of a person who consciously tries to focus on a specific activity (such as writing a book) while ignoring a distraction (such as a loud persistent noise). Free will and “premeditated, voluntary action” appear to be similar, and the existence of one but not the other seems to depend on how they are defined. The author seems to suggest that “premeditated, voluntary action” arises from a particular part of the brain, and this may explain why he believes that it a real phenomenon while free will is not. But the book ends before the author defines exactly (or even loosely) what “premeditated, voluntary action” is, or why it is real when free will is not.

Show Less

I am a big fan of these short format non-fiction books. Harris' treatment of the subject could not have been completed in an essay and a full-blown publication would have necessarily contained a lot of filler. Due to publishers' overhead, marketing, etc. the latter has been the standard for years.

Show More

It's 80,000 words or nothing, which has resulted in a lot of bloated non-fiction. With the rise of the electroic format things are starting to change, thank goodness.

In Free Will, Harris makes his point convincingly and concisely. This subject really should be the great debate of our time. As Harris states, the stakes are high.

For more on the subject, try Tom Clark's writing (a bit of which is quoted in this book) at naturalism.org.

Show Less

Reading this online for the first 2 chapter. My order of the book finally arrived on 3rd week of April 2012.

Chapter 1

"Consider what it would take to actually have free will. You would need to be aware of all the factors that determine your thoughts and actions, and you would need to have complete

Show More

control over those factors. But there is a paradox here that vitiates the very notion of freedom—for what would influence the influences? More influences? None of these adventitious mental states are the real you. You are not controlling the storm, and you are not lost in it. You are the storm."

I like it that even if there is no real free will, we still need the freedom to do what we do. We are the storm, and we are not lost in it.

He explain more on this video on how he couldn't choose something that his subconscious mind hasn't come up with.

"People feel (or presume) an authorship of their thoughts and actions that is illusory. If we were to detect their conscious choices on a brain scanner seconds before they were aware of them, they would be rightly astonished—because this would directly challenge their status as conscious agents in control of their inner lives. We know that we could perform such an experiment, at least in principle, and if we tuned the machine correctly, subjects would feel that we were reading their minds (or controlling them)."

That would be so cool to do experiment on yourself. To see that thoughts come from within before we are aware of its existence.

Further argument.

Spoiler alert:

If we human could find a vaccine or medicine that take away the "evil" part of human, so that human is in control and would not commit murder or harm another person by being "out of control" or "have the intention to harm. Then if those who didn't receive the vaccine committed crimes, we would not blame them, we would treat it as a medical condition.

I agree that religious definition of sin is the worst kind of guideline for morality that lead to evil doing by religious people. We should recognize the precondition for someone that could commit crime and try to eliminate these precondition.

Although the book is a bit short, I like the way he address the reader like he is talking to them. Overall, enjoyable read.

Show Less

A great introduction to the topic of free will and determinism. Not for the philosophically advanced but this book does offer some interesting psychological perspectives that are too often overlooked in philosophy. I particularly liked the discussion of the political ramifications of free will and

Show More

determinism.

Show Less

Free will and responsibility are not the same thing. Reading this made me think about the epistemology and ontology of "free will", an old myth which humanity is just still not ready to let die. Philosophy and science, as ever, are way ahead of the ubiquitous closed minds of mankind.

Not for me; not at all.

Depressingly convincing. I have thought of this book pretty much every day since I finished it, mainly when I think of some new horrible crime report. I am not as eloquent as Sam Harris by far, so I cannot really explain effectively why I think Sam Harris is only partially right in his argument

Show More

that there is no free will. Still, it's good to challenge oneself with these types of reads if only to test preconceived notions that we usually take for granted. This essay just took me to a place of meaninglessness. Everything I value in life is built on the philosophical foundation of free will. Sam Harris sort of turns that foundation into quicksand. He's hard to argue with, which is frustrating. The other frustrating thing is that all the counter arguments to Harris sound lame. I think I'll try to go back to my comfortable illusion of controlling my own thoughts and choices. There is hope in that mirage.

Show Less

So, it seems that free will may be an illusion, and that's alright. The book did an admirable job of illustrating why this is, and why it doesn't have to be a problem for us. Things are a lot more out of control than we like to admit. It doesn't mean we shouldn't work within our biological

Show More

limitations to be the best people we can be. It just means that we do have some built in limitations that differ from person to person. Being aware of the factors we can't control may ultimately help us to have more effective control over the things we can.

Show Less

This is a provocative read about an idea about life that is taken for granted--that seems so natural--though we know (scientifically speaking) it may not be real (not unlike our experience of "watching the sun rise.") Do I have free will? Could I have done things differently, or would something

Show More

else have to change? If our notions of free will are wrong, what would it change about our lives? Our conceptions of morality? Our justice system?

A quick, clear read with some worthy questions.

Show Less

Sam Harris can surely pack a lot into a short book. I find myself agreeing for the most part with his presentation, but it will require a reread before it fully sinks in.

It is the kind of book that really makes you take a second look at life and think about over what you actually have control in your life ...

A great read, especially for those who think that having "free will" means that you are able to move your right arm at any given moment, as if wanting to do that is not the result of an unconscious process in the first place.

If more people would read this book, perhaps we would find a little less

Show More

hate in the world, and a bit more compassion and understanding.

Show Less

Definitely poses some serious problems for the notion of free will. We are slaves to our neurology. When you dig deep, you really don't know what made you decide to do what you do. It always leads to a dead end, which is your brain chemistry, which is designed by your genes and your development,

Show More

both of which you did not control. I do agree with this, I just don't yet know what to do with this information. I'm not yet ready to write assholes off as being victims, but for now it gives me a little more peace in that I see them as less conniving than I thought before.

Show Less

A tiny little thing - all of 80 pages and won't take more than a couple of hours at most. Easy enough to absorb, it presents the argument that free will is an illusion without getting too technical with the neurological and philosophical issues.

Interesting, short and tight book on the notion and illusion of free will. Some useful thought experiments.

I didn't read this book from start to finish. Well, I did. Just not how I usually did. If I had to guess how long it actually took me to read this book, it be less. Way less. However, I read and reread passages. Several times I put the book down and processed paragraphs. Sometimes this processing

Show More

too me days and I'd come back. Am I free to say that I didn't like it? Or agree with it? I did like his writing, though. Am I free to say that?

Show Less

There is some good stuff here, but I think the fact that he never actually defines what free will IS is a major flaw. For a subject like this I expect the author to be very precise with their language and their reasoning. I think Harris is a very witty and entertaining writer but I think he has a

Show More

bit of a tendency to take shortcuts.

Show Less

Dr. Harris presents a brief summary of his deterministic/incompatibilist position on free will, or rather its absence.
I liked his inclusion of a long quote from Tom Clark, references to Daniel Dennett, the inclusion of a quote of Einstein quoting Schopenhauer, Der Mensch kann was er will; er kann

Show More

aber nicht wollen was er will, and the great reference to this link at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy that explains everything clearly and philosophically, but is missing the neuroscience.

Show Less

Read the short one in an afternoon. Very sure, well written, clearly made arguments. Already believed nearly all of this before I read this, but nicely done

it seems that, free will is going be for psychology as evolution is for biology. It will take years of research and debate to push it through predilection and influence of mainstream ideology. Also, I found references provided especially interesting and beneficial.

I'm on board with the seeming dichotomy of underlying determinism and the useful illusion of choice.